A Fair Go for All?

Australia has long worn its belief in the “fair go” as a badge of national identity: the idea that everyone, no matter where they started, deserves a decent chance to get ahead. Yet in recent years that proud slogan has begun to sound hollow to many, drowned out by a rising chorus of anti-immigration voices (particularly when the newcomers bring cultures, faiths, or skin colours different from the majority).

When we start deciding that some people are less entitled to opportunity because of who they are or where they were born, have we quietly abandoned the very value we claim defines us? If the fair go is non-negotiable, then denying it to others isn’t just unkind; it’s un-Australian.

In this powerful and thoughtful essay by Helen Reynolds, she puts the question bluntly: in today’s debate, who is truly acting like an Australian: the immigrant willing to work hard and contribute to this country, or the voices insisting there’s no room for them?

What comes next is not a lecture from on high, but a fair-minded look at both sides of a conversation that has grown painfully polarised.

* * * * *

The “fair go” isn’t just a slogan; it’s an idea built on fairness, mutual respect, and giving someone a chance to succeed. To judge who is being “un-Australian,” we have to ask what the “fair go” demands in this situation.

Let’s look at both sides of the argument through this lens.

The Case Against the Anti-Immigrants

One could argue that strongly opposing the presence of immigrants simply for being different is a fundamental violation of the “fair go.”

1. Denying the Initial Fair Go: The “fair go” is supposed to be for all. If someone opposes a person’s very presence in the country based on their origin, religion, or the speed at which they assimilate, they are denying that person the most basic fair go: the chance to be here and try to build a life.

2. Lack of Mutual Respect: The fair go implies a level of respect and mateship. Strongly worded, blanket complaints about entire groups can foster prejudice and discrimination, which is the antithesis of mutual respect. It creates an “us vs. them” dynamic, which is deeply corrosive to the social fabric.

3. Ignoring the Australian Reality: Modern Australia was built by immigrants. To argue against immigration in principle is to argue against the very composition of our nation. The post-WWII migration wave, for example, brought Southern Europeans who were initially seen as “slow to assimilate.” Today, their contributions are celebrated as fundamental to our culture (e.g., the coffee, the food). The “fair go” given to them ultimately enriched us all.

From this perspective, the act of denying someone a fair chance based on their background could be seen as the more “un-Australian” act.

The Case Against Immigrants “Slow to Assimilate”

On the other hand, one could argue that the concept of a “fair go” comes with implicit responsibilities.

The Social Contract: The “fair go” is a two-way street. Australia offers a fair go to newcomers – safety, opportunity, and freedom. In return, there is an expectation that newcomers will make a good-faith effort to join the team. This doesn’t mean abandoning one’s old culture, but it does mean embracing core Australian values like the “fair go” itself, democracy, the rule of law, and equality of the sexes.

What is “Assimilation” vs. “Integration”? This is the crucial distinction.

• Assimilation means giving up your original culture to blend in completely. This is an outdated and often harmful concept.
• Integration means becoming an active, participating member of Australian society while retaining your cultural heritage. This is the modern goal.
• If “slow to assimilate” means failing to integrate – for example, by rejecting fundamental Australian values like gender equality or freedom of speech – then one could argue that person is not upholding their end of the social contract. They are taking the benefits of Australia without contributing to its shared civic culture.

Threat to Social Cohesion: If large groups live in parallel societies with values that conflict with the “fair go,” it can undermine the very principle that allows for a diverse society to function peacefully. In this view, resisting integration is a rejection of the shared project that is Australia.

Who is More “Un-Australian”?

This is the core of the question. After weighing both sides, a strong case can be made that the greater breach of the “fair go” comes from those who oppose the very presence of immigrants.

Here’s why:

• Action vs. Process: Opposing someone’s presence is an active denial of the fair go. Being “slow to assimilate” is often a slower, more passive process of adjustment that can span generations. The first is a door being slammed shut; the second is a slow walk through the doorway.
• The Burden of Proof: The opponents often place the burden entirely on the immigrant, without acknowledging the host society’s role in facilitating integration. A true “fair go” means offering a hand, English classes, community support, and, most importantly, time. The post-war migrants were given that time.
• The Definition of Australianness: If being “Australian” is defined so narrowly that it excludes people based on how quickly they adopt certain superficial customs, then we have already abandoned the generous, inclusive spirit of the “fair go.” The essence of the fair go is judging people on their character and their efforts, not their birthplace or the colour of their skin.

Conclusion

The most “un-Australian” act in this scenario is likely the one that actively seeks to exclude and deny a fair go to people based on their group identity.

However, a truly Australian solution requires effort from both sides. It requires:

• From the host society: A commitment to the “fair go for all,” which means offering welcome, patience, and support for integration, while vigorously challenging prejudice.
• From newcomers: A good-faith effort to embrace the core values of their new home, particularly the principle of the “fair go” itself, and to participate in the broader society.

The hard work of a successful multicultural nation is not in deciding who is more un-Australian, but in constantly striving to ensure the “fair go” is both offered and honoured by everyone. It’s a contract that must be renewed by every generation.

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.

With gratitude, The AIMN Team